DOCSLIB.ORG

Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles' Capabilities: an Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles' Capabilities: an Overview Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles’ Capabilities: An Overview William J. Rothschild and Debra A. Bailey (Boeing, NASA Systems), Edward All. Henderson (NASNJSC), and Chris Crumbly (NASNMSFC) For Presentation at the AIM 15‘ Exploration Conference Orlando, Florida, January 30-February 1,2005 EXPORT CONTROL NOTICE. This document, including any attachments and exhibits hereto, does not contain technical data controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR; 22 CFR 120-130) andor the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Part 730-744). It may be exported, released, or disclosed to foreign nationals inside or outside the United States without finther USG export license approval. Include this notice with any reproduced part of this document. 8 f Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles' Capabilities: An Overview William J. Rothschild*and Debra A. Bailey' The Boeing Company, NASA Systems, Houston, TX 77059 Edward M. Henderson: NASA/Johnson Space Center 2, Houston, TX 77058 and Chris Crumbly4 NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) concepts have been developed by a collaborative team comprising the Johnson Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Kennedy Space Center, ATK-Thiokol, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, The Boeing Company, and United Space Alliance. The purpose of this study was to provide timely information on a full spectrum of low-risk, cost-effective options for STSDerived Launch Vehicle concepts to support the definition of crew and cargo launch requirements for the Space Exploration Vision. Since the SDLV options use high-reliability hardware, existing facilities, and proven processes, they can provide relatively low-risk capabilities to launch extremely large payloads to low Earth orbit. This capability to reliably lift very large, high4ollar-value payloads could reduce mission operational risks by minimizing the number of complex on- orbit operations compared to architectures based on multiple smaller launchers. The SDLV options also offer several logical spiral development paths for larger exploration payloads. All of these development paths make practical and cost-effective use of existing Space Shuttle Program (SSP) hardware, infrastructure, and launch and flight operations systems. By utilizing these existing assets, the SDLV project could support the safe and orderly transition of the current SSP through the planned end of life in 2010. The SDLV concept definition work during 2004 focused on three main configuration alternatives: a side-mount heavy lifter (-77 MT payload), an in-line medium lifter (-22 MT Crew Exploration Vehicle payload), and an in-line heavy lifter (>lo0 MT payload). This paper provides an overview of the configuration, performance capabilities, reliability estimates, concept of operations, and development plans for each of the various SDLV aiternatives. While development, production, and operations costs have been estimated for each of the SDLV configuration alternatives, these proprietary data have not been included in this paper. ~____~~ ~ Director. Space Transportation, Boeing NASA Systems, 13100 Space Ctr. Blvd. (MC HS 20), Houston, TX (AMMember) Project Engineer, Space Shuttle UD,Boeing NASA Systems, 13100 Space Ctr. Blvd. (MC HSl-30), Houston, TX (AMA Member) ' Deputy Manager, Strategic Planning Office, Space Shuttle Program, NASA/Johnson Space Center (AMMember) ' Manager. Cargo Launch Vehicle Study, Space Transportation Programs and Projects Office, NASAIMSFC-NPOI (AMA Member) 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics I. Introduction Space Transportation System (STS) assets have been in operation since 1981. They are well understood from technical performance, reliability, operations, and cost aspects. Adapting these proven STS assets to yield new launch systems would take full advantage of demonstrated mature, reliable, human-rated systems to develop impressive performance capabilities with minimum technical, schedule, cost, and programmatic uncertainties. Independent studies done by several industry and NASA teams have shown that such STS-Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) ccncepts cffer pa;.!ozd perfomaxe OY~Ta =&e mige fiorn 16 io 101 inetilc ions (Icrr) to low Earth orbit (LEO). Because of the high technical readiness level (TRL) associated with these STS assets, rapid demonstrations and flight test opportunities could provide early program successes with low schedule and cost risks. Importantly, SDLV development and test activities would enhance the safe “flyout” of the cwent STS program through continuity of critical skills and manufacturing infrastructure during the transition period. Viable technical and management approaches have been ide~tifier!thzt mdd &~~~&i!!yredwe the ~~LKZ!rec.;7;,ng casts ccmpaid ta the current STS system. These operational cost savings are achievable by eliminating the labor- and facility- intensive Shuttle orbiter processes plus the low marginal cost associated with using ongoing STS assets. II. Objective The objective of this collaborative industryNASA study has been to define a broad range of SDLV alternatives that could support NASA’s space exploration launch infrastructure needs. We have attempted to assess NASA’s current STS assets and evaluate their applicability to future exploration systems’ Earth-to-Orbit (ETO) launch needs. Our goal has been to provide timely, useful information on a full range of options, supported by objective facts and data. It was not the intent of these collaborative SDLV studies to recommend an ET0 architecture approach or any specific 1auncher confi gurati ons. III. Options for ET0 Transportation Using STSDerived Launch Vehicles SDLV offers a variety of configuration approaches to satisfy the crew and the heavy-lift cargo requirements of future human space exploration. The current STS can reliably propel 118 MT to LEO, including the mass of the Space Shuttle orbiter. By conceptually mixing and matching the basic human-rated propulsion system elements of the STSSpace Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), solid rocket boosters (SRBs), and external tank (ET-ne can create a wide range of new launch vehicle concepts, providing payload lift capabilities in the 16 to >IO0 MT range (Fig. 1). The SDLV work reported in this paper has focused on three main configuration alternatives: a side-mount heaty lifter (-77 MT payload), an in-line medium lifte (-22 MT Crew Exploration Vehicle [CEV] payload), and an in-line hea\y lifter (>I 00 MT payload). 4. Side-Mount HeaFy Lifter (43 to 92 &ITpayloads to LEO) This configuration is a straight-forward derivative of the current STS configuration, replacing the reusable Shuttle orbiter with an expendable payload carrier. The side-mount heavy lifter SDLV concepts would benefit from the long heritage and extensive learning provided by more than 110 STS launches. The side-mount heavy lifter configuration also enjoys an impressive library of previous design and planning work completed as part of the Shuttle-C project during the 1986-1992 timeframe, making this the most well-understood heavy-lift launch system concept available today. The side-mount heavy lifter concepts require the design and development of a new cylindrical payload carrier that would mount three SSMEs along with the avionics and other subsystems. The standard four-segment SRB configuration would use the current ET propellant volume to yield 77 MT payloads to LEO (Fig. 2). The five-segment SRB configuration could be used with a stretched ET to yield 92 MT payloads to LEO. Both side-mount heavy lifter SDLV configurations could carry either cargo only or a combination of cargo and a CEV (Fig. 3). Preliminary reliability estimates indicate the loss-of-vehicle (LOV) rate would be approximately 1/160 to 11240, depending on configuration and operational details. In addition to heavy payload mass, these SDLV options offer large payload sizes up to 7.5 meters in diameter and 35 meters long. Taking advantage of the existing or modified STS hardware for the side-mount launcher also allows the use of the current STS infrastructure. Expensive and time-consuming development of rocket engines and boosters would be avoided, enabling the side- mount heavy lifter Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E) program to achieve a first flight test in as little as 48 months from the start of Full-Scale Development (FSD), see Fig. 4. This would enable parallel operations of a side-mount healy lifter SDLV for a wide range of exploration cargo missions along with a CEV launcher for lunar missions using the same basic launcher and infrastructure. When operated with a CEV, the side-mount heavy 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics I ~~~ Case I LV ~ypeI STS Medium 1 I* 1 Min Changea Magnum SaturnV 1xRSRM 1 - ~. I- - .- Engine No. x Type 1 3 x SSME I 3xSSME -J -. 4xESSME 5xF-1 -- J-2s I . I -I I RCS Only 1 J-2s I J -2 Net Payload Capability to 220 nrni Circular at 28.5 be9 Configuration/ Relative Sue I HEUR12OC Figure 1. STS-Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) options provide a flexible range of payload capabilities to low Earth orbit. PL Provides Orbit Circularizatton (wpop=6,306) at Apogee to 220 x 220 nmi -*/ t-- --z c- PL Fairing ET Separation Separation T = 500 s T-1 --53os , * MECO Ocean Disposal 220 x 30 nmi Propulsion Module Suborbital Separation T=487s T = T MEC0+45 min Alt nmi 0 .* ' = 57 . ' SRB Separation AttiiudeControl I Tz124.44~ Attitude Control Provided by Canier- Provided by Payload Alt = 147k ft Vel = 4.71 1 ft/s Q = 43 lbm2 Ocean Recovery : Launch orbit 220 x 220 nmi Payload Volume 6.5 m x 25 rn Pay'md Weight to Orbii 77 WIT (220nrni circular at 28.5 deg) (170.000 fbm) Reliability (LOV) 1Q37 Dimensions (ft) i Figure 2. The side-mount heavylift SDLV option offers a high-reliability launcher with large payloads for a low loss of mission risk. 3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics i *- \ I I .I Wl It I I1 I n1 I1 E,, I - 5-Segment Solid Booster Stretched ET 3 SSME Engines - Maximum Payload Capability (no engine-out) = 88 to 92 MT Usable Payload Capability With Engine-Out.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Overview of Mars Vicinity Transportation Concepts for a Human Mars Mission
    An Overview of Mars Vicinity Transportation Concepts for a Human Mars Mission Carol E. Dexter NASA/MSFC Exploration Transportation Office Larry Kos NASA/MSFC Preliminary Design Office/Mission Analysis Team Abstract To send a piloted mission to Mars, transportation systems must be developed for the Earth to Orbit, trans Mars injection (TMI), capture into Mars orbit, Mars descent, surface stay, Mars ascent, trans Earth injection (TEI), and Earth return phases. This paper presents a brief overview of the transportation systems for the Human Mars Mission (HMM) only in the vicinity of Mars. This includes: capture into Mars orbit, Mars descent, surface stay, and Mars ascent. Development of feasible mission scenarios now is important for identification of critical technology areas that must be developed to support future human missions. Although there is no funded human Mars mission today, architecture studies are focusing on missions traveling to Mars between 2011 and the early 2020's. Introduction For several years engineers and scientists at NASA have been developing mission scenarios for sending humans to Mars and returning them safely to Earth. The HMM has evolved as analyses have been completed and updated. The design reference mission (DRM) :'2 describes the baseline mission architecture at a given time, it is not intended to be a final or recommended mission scenario. As development of the HMM continues, the DRM and various mission architecture options or design reference points (DRPs) are refined and updated. Several locations are included in the DRPs: Mars, the Moon, and asteroids. At this time, only the Mars DRP has been evaluated in any detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Launch System (Sls) Motors
    Propulsion Products Catalog SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM (SLS) MOTORS For NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), Northrop Grumman manufactures the five-segment SLS heavy- lift boosters, the booster separation motors (BSM), and the Launch Abort System’s (LAS) launch abort motor and attitude control motor. The SLS five-segment booster is the largest solid rocket motor ever built for flight. The SLS booster shares some design heritage with flight-proven four-segment space shuttle reusable solid rocket motors (RSRM), but generates 20 percent greater average thrust and 24 percent greater total impulse. While space shuttle RSRM production has ended, sustained booster production for SLS helps provide cost savings and access to reliable material sources. Designed to push the spent RSRMs safely away from the space shuttle, Northrop Grumman BSMs were rigorously qualified for human space flight and successfully used on the last fifteen space shuttle missions. These same motors are a critical part of NASA’s SLS. Four BSMs are installed in the forward frustum of each five-segment booster and four are installed in the aft skirt, for a total of 16 BSMs per launch. The launch abort motor is an integral part of NASA’s LAS. The LAS is designed to safely pull the Orion crew module away from the SLS launch vehicle in the event of an emergency on the launch pad or during ascent. Northrop Grumman is on contract to Lockheed Martin to build the abort motor and attitude control motor—Lockheed is the prime contractor for building the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle designed for use on NASA’s SLS.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Session IA-Shuttle-C Heavy-Lift Vehicle of the 90'S
    The Space Congress® Proceedings 1989 (26th) Space - The New Generation Apr 25th, 2:00 PM Paper Session I-A - Shuttle-C Heavy-Lift Vehicle of the 90's Robert G. Eudy Manager, Shuttle-C Task Team, Marshall Space Flight Center Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Eudy, Robert G., "Paper Session I-A - Shuttle-C Heavy-Lift Vehicle of the 90's" (1989). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 5. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1989-26th/april-25-1989/5 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SHUTTLE-C HEAVY-LIFT VEHICLE OF THE 90 ' S Mr. Robert G. Eudy, Manager Shuttle-C Task Team Marshall Space Flight Center ABSTRACT United States current and planned space activities identify the need for increased payload capacity and unmanned flight to complement the existing Shuttle. To meet this challenge the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is defining an unmanned cargo version of the Shuttle that can give the nation early heavy-lift capability. Called Shuttle-C, this unmanned vehicle is a natural, low-cost evolution of the current Space Shuttle that can be flying 100,000 to 170,000 pound payloads by late 1994. At the core of Shuttle-C design philosophy is the principle of evolvement from the United State's Space Transportation System.
    [Show full text]
  • View / Download
    www.arianespace.com www.starsem.com www.avio Arianespace’s eighth launch of 2021 with the fifth Soyuz of the year will place its satellite passengers into low Earth orbit. The launcher will be carrying a total payload of approximately 5 518 kg. The launch will be performed from Baikonur, in Kazakhstan. MISSION DESCRIPTION 2 ONEWEB SATELLITES 3 Liftoff is planned on at exactly: SOYUZ LAUNCHER 4 06:23 p.m. Washington, D.C. time, 10:23 p.m. Universal time (UTC), LAUNCH CAMPAIGN 4 00:23 a.m. Paris time, FLIGHT SEQUENCES 5 01:23 a.m. Moscow time, 03:23 a.m. Baikonur Cosmodrome. STAKEHOLDERS OF A LAUNCH 6 The nominal duration of the mission (from liftoff to separation of the satellites) is: 3 hours and 45 minutes. Satellites: OneWeb satellite #255 to #288 Customer: OneWeb • Altitude at separation: 450 km Cyrielle BOUJU • Inclination: 84.7degrees [email protected] +33 (0)6 32 65 97 48 RUAG Space AB (Linköping, Sweden) is the prime contractor in charge of development and production of the dispenser system used on Flight ST34. It will carry the satellites during their flight to low Earth orbit and then release them into space. The dedicated dispenser is designed to Flight ST34, the 29th commercial mission from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan performed by accommodate up to 36 spacecraft per launch, allowing Arianespace and its Starsem affiliate, will put 34 of OneWeb’s satellites bringing the total fleet to 288 satellites Arianespace to timely deliver the lion’s share of the initial into a near-polar orbit at an altitude of 450 kilometers.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade Studies Towards an Australian Indigenous Space Launch System
    TRADE STUDIES TOWARDS AN AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Engineering by Gordon P. Briggs B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc. (Astron) School of Engineering and Information Technology, University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy January 2010 Abstract During the project Apollo moon landings of the mid 1970s the United States of America was the pre-eminent space faring nation followed closely by only the USSR. Since that time many other nations have realised the potential of spaceflight not only for immediate financial gain in areas such as communications and earth observation but also in the strategic areas of scientific discovery, industrial development and national prestige. Australia on the other hand has resolutely refused to participate by instituting its own space program. Successive Australian governments have preferred to obtain any required space hardware or services by purchasing off-the-shelf from foreign suppliers. This policy or attitude is a matter of frustration to those sections of the Australian technical community who believe that the nation should be participating in space technology. In particular the provision of an indigenous launch vehicle that would guarantee the nation independent access to the space frontier. It would therefore appear that any launch vehicle development in Australia will be left to non- government organisations to at least define the requirements for such a vehicle and to initiate development of long-lead items for such a project. It is therefore the aim of this thesis to attempt to define some of the requirements for a nascent Australian indigenous launch vehicle system.
    [Show full text]
  • Spaceport Infrastructure Cost Trends
    AIAA 2014-4397 SPACE Conferences & Exposition 4-7 August 2014, San Diego, CA AIAA SPACE 2014 Conference and Exposition Spaceport Infrastructure Cost Trends Brian S. Gulliver, PE1, and G. Wayne Finger, PhD, PE2 RS&H, Inc. The total cost of employing a new or revised space launch system is critical to understanding its business potential, analyzing its business case and funding its development. The design, construction and activation of a commercial launch complex or spaceport can represent a significant portion of the non-recurring costs for a new launch system. While the historical cost trends for traditional launch site infrastructure are fairly well understood, significant changes in the approach to commercial launch systems in recent years have required a reevaluation of the cost of ground infrastructure. By understanding the factors which drive these costs, informed decisions can be made early in a program to give the business case the best chance of economic success. The authors have designed several NASA, military, commercial and private launch complexes and supported the evaluation and licensing of commercial aerospaceports. Data from these designs has been used to identify the major factors which, on a broad scale, drive their non-recurring costs. Both vehicle specific and location specific factors play major roles in establishing costs. I. Introduction It is critical for launch vehicle operators and other stakeholders to understand the factors and trends that affect the non-recurring costs of launch site infrastructure. These costs are often an area of concern when planning for the development of a new launch vehicle program as they can represent a significant capital investment that must be recovered over the lifecycle of the program.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Shuttle Chronology Spacecalc
    CBS News/Spaceflight Now STS Flight History by Launch Date 7/20/06 Space Shuttle Chronology SpaceCalc Space Shuttle DD HH MM SS Flights Notes Challenger 062 07 56 22 10 MET based on main gear Columbia 300 17 40 22 28 touchdown. Compiled from Discovery 268 15 29 30 32 news reports, NASA files. Atlantis 219 21 27 17 26 Endeavour 206 14 12 17 19 Compiled by William Harwood Program Total 1058 04 45 48 115 CBS News/Spaceflight Now OV # STS DD HH MM SS Launch Mission Description 102 N/A 01 00 00 00 00 02/28/81 Flight readiness firing 102 01 01 02 06 20 53 04/12/81 First shuttle flight 102 02 02 02 06 13 11 11/12/81 Fuel cell failure; MDM flight 102 03 03 08 00 04 46 03/22/82 White Sands, N.M., landing 102 04 04 07 01 09 31 06/27/82 Final shuttle test flight 102 05 05 05 02 14 26 11/11/82 1st STS satellites launched 99 N/A 06 00 00 00 00 12/18/82 Flight Readiness Firing 99 N/A 06 00 00 00 00 01/25/83 FRF-2 99 06 06 05 00 23 42 04/04/83 TDRS-1; 1st STS spacewalk 99 07 07 06 02 23 59 06/18/83 Three comsats 99 08 08 06 01 08 43 08/30/83 Insat, CFES 102 09 09 10 07 47 24 11/28/83 First Spacelab flight 99 10 41B 07 23 15 55 02/02/84 2 comsats lost; MMU EVA 99 11 41C 06 23 40 07 04/06/84 Solar Max repair; MMU EVA 103 N/A 41D 00 00 00 00 06/02/84 Flight readiness firing 103 N/A 41D 00 00 00 00 06/26/84 RSLS abort 103 12 41D 06 00 56 04 08/30/84 SBS, Syncom, Telstar 99 13 41G 08 05 23 38 10/05/84 ERBS; 1st female EVA 103 14 51A 07 23 44 56 11/07/84 Westar, Palapa retrieval 103 15 51C 03 01 33 23 01/24/85 DOD (Magnum?) 103 16 51D 06 23 55 23 04/12/85
    [Show full text]
  • Rex D. Hall and David J. Shayler
    Rex D. Hall and David J. Shayler Soyuz A Universal Spacecraft ruuiiMicPublishedu 11in1 aaaundiiuiassociationi witwimh ^^ • Springer Praxis Publishing PRHB Chichester, UK "^UF Table of contents Foreword xvii Authors' preface xix Acknowledgements xxi List of illustrations and tables xxiii Prologue xxix ORIGINS 1 Soviet manned spaceflight after Vostok 1 Design requirements 1 Sever and the 1L: the genesis of Soyuz 3 The Vostok 7/1L Soyuz Complex 4 The mission sequence of the early Soyuz Complex 6 The Soyuz 7K complex 7 Soyuz 7K (Soyuz A) design features 8 The American General Electric concept 10 Soyuz 9K and Soyuz 1 IK 11 The Soyuz Complex mission profile 12 Contracts, funding and schedules 13 Soyuz to the Moon 14 A redirection for Soyuz 14 The N1/L3 lunar landing mission profile 15 Exploring the potential of Soyuz 16 Soyuz 7K-P: a piloted anti-satellite interceptor 16 Soyuz 7K-R: a piloted reconnaissance space station 17 Soyuz VI: the military research spacecraft Zvezda 18 Adapting Soyuz for lunar missions 20 Spacecraft design changes 21 Crewing for circumlunar missions 22 The Zond missions 23 The end of the Soviet lunar programme 33 The lunar orbit module (7K-LOK) 33 viii Table of contents A change of direction 35 References 35 MISSION HARDWARE AND SUPPORT 39 Hardware and systems 39 Crew positions 40 The spacecraft 41 The Propulsion Module (PM) 41 The Descent Module (DM) 41 The Orbital Module (OM) 44 Pyrotechnic devices 45 Spacecraft sub-systems 46 Rendezvous, docking and transfer 47 Electrical power 53 Thermal control 54 Life support 54
    [Show full text]
  • Launcherone Success Opens New Space Access Gateway Guy Norris January 22, 2021
    1/22/21 7:05 1/6 LauncherOne Success Opens New Space Access Gateway Guy Norris January 22, 2021 With San Nicolas Island far below, LauncherOne headed for polar orbit. Credit: Virgin Orbit Virgin Orbit had barely tweeted news of the successful Jan. 17 space debut of its LauncherOne vehicle on social media when new launch contracts began arriving in the company’s email inbox. A testament to the pent-up market demand for small-satellite launch capability, the speedy reaction to the long-awaited demonstration of the new space-access vehicle paves the way for multiple follow-on Virgin Orbit missions by year-end and a potential doubling of the rate in 2022. First successful privately developed air-launched, liquid-fueled rocket Payloads deployed for NASA’s Venture Class Launch Services program The glitch-free !ight of LauncherOne on its second demonstration test was a critical and much-welcomed milestone for the Long Beach, California-based company. Coming almost nine years a"er the air-launch concept was #rst unveiled by Virgin founder Richard Branson, and six years a"er the start of full-scale development, the !ight followed last May’s #rst demonstration mission, which ended abruptly when the rocket motor shut o$ a"er just 4 sec. 1/22/21 7:05 2/6 A"er an exhaustive analysis and modi#cations to beef up the oxidizer feed line at the heart of the #rst !ight failure, the path to the Launch Demo 2 test was then delayed until January 2021 by the COVID-19 pandemic. With the LauncherOne system now proven, design changes veri#ed and the #rst 10 small satellites placed in orbit, Virgin Orbit is already focusing on the next steps to ramp up its production and launch-cadence capabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Soviet Space Program
    C05500088 TOP eEGRET iuf 3EEA~ NIE 11-1-71 THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM Declassified Under Authority of the lnteragency Security Classification Appeals Panel, E.O. 13526, sec. 5.3(b)(3) ISCAP Appeal No. 2011 -003, document 2 Declassification date: November 23, 2020 ifOP GEEAE:r C05500088 1'9P SloGRET CONTENTS Page THE PROBLEM ... 1 SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS l DISCUSSION 5 I. SOV.IET SPACE ACTIVITY DURING TfIE PAST TWO YEARS . 5 II. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE PROSPECTS . 6 A. General ............................................. 6 B. Organization and Management . ............... 6 C. Economics .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. 8 III. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL FACTORS ... 9 A. General .. .. .. .. .. 9 B. Launch Vehicles . 9 C. High-Energy Propellants .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 D. Manned Spacecraft . 12 E. Life Support Systems . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15 F. Non-Nuclear Power Sources for Spacecraft . 16 G. Nuclear Power and Propulsion ..... 16 Te>P M:EW TCS 2032-71 IOP SECl<ET" C05500088 TOP SECRGJ:. IOP SECREI Page H. Communications Systems for Space Operations . 16 I. Command and Control for Space Operations . 17 IV. FUTURE PROSPECTS ....................................... 18 A. General ............... ... ···•· ................. ····· ... 18 B. Manned Space Station . 19 C. Planetary Exploration . ........ 19 D. Unmanned Lunar Exploration ..... 21 E. Manned Lunar Landfog ... 21 F. Applied Satellites ......... 22 G. Scientific Satellites ........................................ 24 V. INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATION ............. 24 A. USSR-European Nations .................................... 24 B. USSR-United States 25 ANNEX A. SOVIET SPACE ACTIVITY ANNEX B. SOVIET SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES ANNEX C. SOVIET CHRONOLOGICAL SPACE LOG FOR THE PERIOD 24 June 1969 Through 27 June 1971 TCS 2032-71 IOP SLClt~ 70P SECRE1- C05500088 TOP SEGR:R THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM THE PROBLEM To estimate Soviet capabilities and probable accomplishments in space over the next 5 to 10 years.' SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS A.
    [Show full text]
  • IAF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS and INNOVATIONS SYMPOSIUM (D2) Small Launchers: Concepts and Operations (Part I) (7)
    69th International Astronautical Congress 2018 Paper ID: 44054 oral IAF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS AND INNOVATIONS SYMPOSIUM (D2) Small Launchers: Concepts and Operations (Part I) (7) Author: Ms. Sirisha Bandla Virgin Galactic L.L.C, United States, [email protected] Ms. Monica Jan Virgin Galactic L.L.C, United States, [email protected] LAUNCHERONE: RESPONSIVE LAUNCH FOR SMALL SATELLITES Abstract Virgin Orbit is a developing small launch platform that will provide affordable, dedicated rides to orbit for small satellites starting this year. We are in the midst of a small satellite revolution and with technology advancement packing more capability in smaller packages, small satellites are progressively pro- viding solutions for remote sensing, communications, earth observation and other low-Earth orbit needs. Currently, a small satellite operator is typically forced to ride as a secondary payload, constrained to the primary payload's launch schedule and orbit. However, Virgin Orbit's small launch vehicle, LauncherOne, will soon begin providing frequent, affordable, and dedicated transportation to orbit for small payloads. LauncherOne is a two stage, liquid propulsion (LOX/RP) rocket launched from a Boeing 747-400. By utilizing air-launch, the system is designed to conduct operations from a variety of locations, removing the complexity and scheduling typically associated with traditional launch ranges. LauncherOne will allow customers to select from various launch azimuths, including equatorial inclinations, and will increase avail- able orbital launch windows. The Long Beach, California, USA facility where the team is based has been outfitted with the equipment needed for the manufacture of the LauncherOne rocket, and currently staffs over 300 employees.
    [Show full text]
  • SOYUZ THROUGH the AGES the R-7 Rocket That Led to the Family of Soyuz Vehicles Launching Today Lifted Off for the First Time Onfeb
    RUSSIAN SPACE SOYUZ THROUGH THE AGES The R-7 rocket that led to the family of Soyuz vehicles launching today lifted off for the first time onFeb. 17, 1959. The last launch, on Dec. 27, 2018, was number 1,898. Irene Klotz and Maxim Pyadushkin Vostochny Cosmodrome anufactured by the Progress Rocket Space Center in Sama- Evolution of Soyuz-Family Launch Vehicles ra, Russia, the medium-lift expendable booster originally was used for Soviet-era human space missions and later became the R-7 Soyuz Soyuz-L workhorse for the country’s civilian and military space programs. M 1957 First launch of the ICBM (SS-6 1966-76 (32 launches, 1970-71 (three launches, Sapwood) that served as a basis for including 30 successful, all successful, The first rocket officially named Soyuz was launched in Soviet/Russian launch vehicles from Baikonur) from Baikonur) 1966 and has since flown 1,050 times, of which 1,023 were including the Soyuz family successful. Production of Soyuz rockets peaked in the early Soyuz 1980s at about 60 vehicles per year. Medium-Class Launch Vehicle Russia began offering Soyuz launch services internationally in the mid-1980s through Glavkosmos, a commercial entity set up to sell Soviet rocket and space technologies. Manufacturer: Progress Rocket Space Soyuz-U/-U2 Soyuz-M Center, Samara, Russia In 1996, Russia created Starsem, a joint venture (35% ArianeGroup, 25% Roscosmos, 25% RKTs Progress, 15% 1991 Breakup of the 1973-2017 1971-76 (eight launches, Soviet Union, (859 launches, including all successful, from Plesetsk) Dimensions Arianespace) that had exclusive rights to provide commercial launch services on Soyuz launch vehicles.
    [Show full text]